Minimal access aortic valve replacement: is it worth it?

Controversy surrounds the use of minimal access aortic valve replacement (AVR). This meta-analytical study quantified the effects of minimal access AVR on morbidity and mortality compared with conventional AVR and evaluated study heterogeneity and robustness of the findings using sensitivity analysis. Overall, meta-analysis suggested marginal benefits in perioperative mortality (4,667 patients; odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.00; p = 0.05), intensive care unit stay, total hospital stay, and ventilation time in the minimal access AVR group, although cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and total operation times were longer. Study heterogeneity and apparent benefits in perioperative mortality were related to study quality, although results for intensive care unit and hospital stay were maintained according to the sensitivity analysis. This suggests that minimal access AVR can be offered on the basis of patient choice and cosmesis rather than evident clinical benefit.     

Hyperhidrosis: What is it and Why Does it Occur?

Hyperhidrosis is excessive sweating in response to heat or emotional stimuli beyond physiologic need. The ailment is not new and has been described in the literature dating back several centuries. It can be classified as either primary or secondary based on its etiology. Mechanisms that cause excessive sweating can be traced to the sympathetic nervous system, part of the autonomic nervous system. It has been speculated that the primary abnormality is central, and that the hypothalamic sweat center that controls the palms, axillae, and soles is distinct in hyperhidrosis individuals.     

Retroperitoneal approach for aortic surgery: is it worth it?

BACKGROUND: Previous reports suggest that earlier hospital discharges and reduced postoperative complications occur when a retroperitoneal approach is used for aortic surgery. Other publications refute this concept. In an effort to determine the most cost efficient method for aortic surgery in our institution, while maintaining high standards of care and outcome, we compared the retroperitoneal approach to the conventional transperitoneal aortic operation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between December 1995 and April 1998, 120 patients underwent aortic surgery by either the transperitoneal (n=60) or retroperitoneal approach (n=60). All patients were enrolled prospectively in a vascular registry and retrospectively reviewed. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three vascular surgeons. A clinical pathway for elective aortic surgery was developed and applied to both groups. Patients were evaluated with respect to demographics, comorbidities, preoperative risk stratification, conduct of the operative procedure, length of stay, complications, cost, clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. The indications for aortic surgery were similar in both groups - 64% for aneurysm disease and 36% for occlusive disease. Both symptomatic and asymptomatic aneurysms were included and size ranged from 4.4 to 14cm. All aortic reconstructions were done in the standard manner using knitted Dacron velour prostheses in either the aortic tube, bi-iliac or bi-femoral configuration. Statistical analysis of means and medians was accomplished using the Wilcoxin Rank-sum test and percentages were compared using Fisher's Exact test. P values less than 0.05 indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics. The incidence of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease, obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, tobacco abuse, distal lower extremity occlusive disease and the results of chemical myocardial stress evaluations were similar in both groups. Comorbidities of pre-existing renal insufficiency/failure and morbid obesity were increased in the retroperitoneal group. Five patients in the retroperitoneal group represented redo aortic surgery and there were no redo procedures in the transperitoneal group. Length of operative procedures and blood replacement requirements for both groups were similar. The transperitoneal group required 2-3l more intraoperative intravenous (IV) crystalloid than the retroperitoneal group (P<0.0001). Statistically significant reductions in ICU days, postoperative ileus and total lengths of stay were observed in the retroperitoneal group (P<0.0001). This resulted in substantial reductions in hospital costs for the retroperitoneal group (P<0.01). Postoperative complications were similar for both groups except for statistically significant increases in pulmonary edema (P<0.01) and pneumonia (P<0.001) in the transperitoneal group. Cardiac arrhythmias, primarily atrial dysrhythmias, were more frequent in the transperitoneal group but this failed to reach statistical significance (P<0.16). Combined thirty day mortality was 0.9%. Time of recovery to full activity and patient satisfaction substantially favored the retroperitoneal group. CONCLUSION: Our clinical pathway and algorithm for aortic surgery was easily followed by those patients in the retroperitoneal approach group and resulted in decreases in ICU time, postoperative ileus, volume of intraoperative crystalloid and total length of stay. The patients in the transperitoneal group often failed to progress appropriately on the pathway. Reduced hospital costs associated with aortic surgery using the retroperitoneal approach has increased the profitability for this surgery in our institution by an average of $4000 per case and has increased the value (quality/cost) of this surgery to our patients and our institution.     

Reaming during anterograde femoral nailing: is it worth it?

A systematic review was performed to assess the relative merits of reamed and unreamed antegrade femoral nailing. To be included, a study had to be prospective, randomised or pseudorandomised, comparing reamed and unreamed antegrade femoral nailing in adults. Where more than one study from the same institution was available, only the study with longest follow-up was included. A literature search found 2044 possible articles. Of these, eight studies compared reamed and unreamed femoral nailing. The methodology of these articles was independently assessed by all the three authors. Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Each outcome measure tested was assessed for heterogeneity. If significant heterogeneity was present, the data were not combined. If there was no significant heterogeneity, a combined odds ratio or weighted mean difference was calculated using a fixed effects model, and a Z-test was performed to test the overall effect. Six hundred and forty-seven femoral fractures (315 reamed; 332 unreamed) were entered into the included studies. Unreamed nailing was quicker and associated with significantly less blood loss (P < 0.00001). Reaming significantly reduced the time to union (P = 0.00001), non-union (P = 0.002), delayed union (P = 0.005), technical problems (P = 0.01) and reoperation rate (P = 0.001). The use of reamed femoral nails gives significant advantages over unreamed femoral nails.     

Scrotal calcinosis: is it idiopathic?

Idiopathic calcinosis of the scrotum is a rare condition, and its pathogenesis remains unknown. We recently examined 3 patients in whom scrotal epidermoid cysts in varying stages of inflammation coexisted with scrotal calcinosis. Some cysts revealed calcification of their keratin contents with little evidence of active inflammation. Other cysts showed rupture of their epithelial walls associated with the presence of keratin fibers and calcium granules in the surrounding dermis. We found that this disorder is not idiopathic and that epidermal inclusion cysts constitute the basic abnormality.     

Evidence-based orthopaedics: is it possible?

EBM is referred to as the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. This article describes the history and practice of evidence-based medicine.     

Appendicitis, is it an emergency?

Prompt appendectomy has always been a standard of care because of the risk of progression in pathology. This time honored practice has been recently challenged by studies, suggesting that appendicitis can be operated on electively. The aim of this study is to examine whether delayed intervention in acute appendicitis is safe by correlating the interval from presentation to operation with the operative and postoperative complications. Retrospective review of patients who underwent appendectomy for acute appendicitis in 2009 was done. The following parameters were recorded: demographics, duration from presentation to evaluation by emergency room attending, performing CT scan, surgical consult, and operation. The pathology, post operative complications, and length of stay were also recorded. Patients were divided into two groups: incision time < 10 hours (early group) and incision time > 10 hours (delayed group). The end points chosen for comparison were: 1) laparoscopic to open conversion rate, 2) complications, 3) readmissions, and 4) length of stay. Number of cases totaled 201, with 76 in the < 10 hours group and 125 in the > 10 hours group. The male to female ratio for the < 10 hours group was 54:22 and for the > 10 hours group was 59:66 (P < 0.001). Length of stay for the early group was 75.52 hours and for the delayed group, 89.15 hours (P = 0.04). There was one intra-abdominal abscess in the early group and 10 in the delayed group (P = 0.04). The early group had 0.2 (2.6%) open conversions, and the delayed group had five (4.1%) conversions (P = 0.58). There were six (4.8%) readmissions in the delayed group and none in the early group (P = 0.05). Our study reveals that the complication rate, length of stay, and readmissions are more in the delayed group. Conversion rate was more in the delayed group, but the difference was not significant. We conclude that early surgical intervention is beneficial in acute appendicitis.